Retail Capacity Study - Update September 2006

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames RETAIL CAPACITY STUDY - UPDATE

Final Report September 2006

P1674

ROGER TYM & PARTNERS

Fairfax House 15 Fulwood Place London WC1V 6HU t (020) 7831 2711 f (020) 7831 7653 e [email protected] w www.tymconsult.com

This document is formatted for double-sided printing.

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 Background.....................................................................................................................1 Study Aims and Approach ..............................................................................................1 Structure of the Report....................................................................................................1

2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT – COMPARISON GOODS....................................................... 3 Study Area ......................................................................................................................3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................3 Conclusions on Comparison Goods Floorspace Capacity ............................................ 10 Sensitivity Test.............................................................................................................. 11

3 NEEDS ASSESSMENT – CONVENIENCE GOODS ................................................... 15 Study Area .................................................................................................................... 15 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 15 Conclusions on Convenience Goods Floorspace Capacity .......................................... 18

4 RETAIL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 19

5 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 21

APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Comparison Goods Study Area Map & Schedule of Wards Appendix 2 – Retail Capacity Calculation Tables – Comparison Goods Appendix 3 – Convenience Goods Study Area Map Appendix 4 – Retail Capacity Calculation Tables – Convenience Goods Appendix 5 – Retailer Requirements

Kingston Retail Capacity Study - Update Final Report

Roger Tym & Partners September 2006 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Background 1.1 In January 2006 the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (RBK) commissioned

Roger Tym & Partners (RTP) to update the Retail Capacity Statement prepared by RTP in July 2003.

1.2 The 2003 study identified that Kingston town centre supports 164,739 sqm net (241,378 sqm gross) of comparison goods retail floorspace, and concluded that at current market shares, there was expenditure potential to support an additional 20,000 square metres net (29,000 square metres gross) of comparison goods floorspace by 2006 and a further 28,000 square metres net (40,000 square metres gross) comparison goods floorspace by 2011. This level of growth equates to a 12% floorspace increase at 2006, and a 29% cumulative increase at 2011.

1.3 At adjusted market shares, which reflect development plans and aspirations elsewhere, the report concluded there was expenditure potential to support an additional 14,500 sqm net comparison floorspace (21,000 sqm gross) by 2006 and an additional 20,500 sqm net (29,000 sqm gross) by 2011.

1.4 With regard to convenience goods floorspace, the report concluded that there was expenditure growth available to support limited foodstore provision within the borough, of between 650 sqm net and 850 sqm net (1,000 sqm to 1,300 sqm gross) in each period.

Study Aims and Approach 1.5 The aim of this study is to update the 2003 study that quantified convenience and

comparison expenditure and floorspace requirements in 2002 (the base year), 2006 and 2011. This study updates the expenditure and floorspace requirements in the forecast years using new data and assumptions based on the latest expenditure data and changes in retail floorspace provision elsewhere. It also projects forward to 2016 both the quantitative comparison goods need for further retail development within Kingston Town Centre and the borough-wide convenience goods need.

1.6 The changes we incorporate in this study are as follows:

Use of the latest GLA and Surrey County Council population projections.

Use of the latest per capita expenditure estimates and expenditure growth rates.

Adoption of a refined approach using a combination of current and adjusted market shares to estimate the comparison goods growth potential.

Provision of an allowance for comparison goods expenditure inflows from beyond the Study Area.

Use of the latest information on growth in retail sales densities.

Examination of different convenience goods retail formats.

Structure of the Report 1.7 Section 2 of our report sets out the quantitative needs assessment for comparison

goods floorspace in the base year, 2002, and the three projection years 2006, 2011 and 2016.

1.8 Section 3 sets out the quantitative needs assessment for additional convenience goods floorspace to 2016.

1.9 In Section 4 we outline current retailer requirements for floorspace in Kingston.





2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT – COMPARISON GOODS 2.1 In this section we set out our assessment of the need for additional comparison goods

retail floorspace in Kingston town centre to 2016.

Study Area 2.2 The Study Area for this update work is consistent with that used in the 2003 study. It

was necessary to make minor changes to the zone configuration to reflect recent changes in ward-level geography. A zone plan and schedule of wards is shown at Appendix 1.

Methodology 2.3 We have employed a step by step approach to the need assessment that is largely

consistent with the methodology used in the 2003 study. A detailed outline of the methodology used for calculating additional comparison goods floorspace can be found in Chapter 4 of the RBK Retail Capacity Study (July 2003). There are some differences between this update and the earlier study in terms of methodology, data sources and assumptions used, and these are explained below.

2.4 The base year remains 2002 and all monetary values are held constant at 2000 prices thus enabling comparison with the 2003 study.

2.5 All the calculations are shown in Tables 1 to 8 in Appendix 2.

Step 1: Establish the Base Year Position1

2.6 The first step in this assessment is to establish the current trading position for Kingston town centre in the base year.

2.7 To do this we calculate:

the quantum of expenditure in the Study Area;

Kingston town centre’s turnover derived from the Study Area and inflows from outside the Study Area; and

Kingston town centre’s total turnover and overall sales density.

2.8 The base year position is set out in Table 1 in Appendix 2.

2.9 The calculation of the expenditure potential has two components – population and per capita expenditure. In respect of population we have used the latest GLA 2005 Interim Ward Projections for the London wards, and the 2001 Census population for the Surrey wards, which has been projected forward to 2002 using district level population growth rates provided by Surrey County Council.

2.10 The population figures by zone are set out in Table 2 in Appendix 2 and show that in the base year, 2002, the population for the whole Study Area in 2002 was 1.25 million with the highest portion in Zone 1 (Kingston). The figure for the whole Study Area is close (some 20,000 lower) to the estimate in the previous study (1.27 million). Thus population data derived from the 2001 Census provides a close match to the previous population estimates that were projections based on 1991 Census data.

2.11 We have also used the latest available 2003 per capita expenditure estimates, taken from MapInfo our preferred expenditure data provider2. The methodology used for compiling the data has been significantly modified since the 2003 study and as such

1 A detailed methodology is outlined at Para 4.4 to Para 4.16 of the 2003 Study. 2 MapInfo are recognised as being an industry standard provider of expenditure data and forecasts



the latest available MapInfo data differs from the data used in the previous study in a number of important respects. The main difference is that new data from the 2001 Census in respect of employment, and income (measured by occupation) has become available. This, plus the fact that MapInfo now utilise regional rather than national level consumer spending data, sourced from the ONS Regional Accounts means that the 2003 based per capita expenditure estimates are considered by RTP and others to be more accurate than the previous estimates used in the last study.

2.12 To ensure consistency with the 2003 study the 2003 data is converted to a 2000 price base and projected backwards to 2002 (the base year) using MapInfo expenditure growth rate projections3, which for 2002 to 2003 was the actual observed growth rate of 8.7%. The expenditure data is grown forwards to the projection years using the growth rates set out at paragraph 2.27 below.

2.13 A deduction of 7.6% is made to allow for special forms of trading (SFT). This is consistent with the deduction for SFT made in the 2003 study.

2.14 The resulting average per capita expenditure base year estimates of £3,479 (net of SFT) are significantly higher than the £2,592 figure in the 2003 study, and represent an increase of 34%. The uplift is the product of the improvements to the Census data and the availability of regional consumer spending data as outlined in paragraph 2.11.

2.15 Base year total comparison goods expenditure generated from within the Study Area for the update study compared to the 2003 study is outlined in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Population and Expenditure in the Base Year

2003 Study 2006 Study Differential

Population 1,271,351 1,248,203 -23,148 Average Per Capita Comparison Goods Expenditure (£)

2,592 3,479 887

Total Comparison Goods Expenditure (£M) 3,261.8 4,345.1 1,083.3

2.16 Despite the marginal drop in estimated population in the base year, the significant increase in estimated per capita expenditure means that total comparison goods expenditure for the Study Area in 2002 is £4,345 million for the present study compared to £3,262 million in the 2003 study, an increase of 33% or £1.08 billion.

2.17 We next calculate the proportion of comparison goods expenditure available for town centre locations, taking account of bulky goods, DIY and garden centre expenditure as per paragraph 4.12 of the original study.

2.18 To calculate Kingston’s turnover from within the Study Area at the base year, we apply the current market shares from each of the Study Area Zones for Kingston, as determined by the Kingston Household Survey 2002, to the total available expenditure.

2.19 We also need to account for an inflow of expenditure from outside the Study Area. On the basis of penetration rates4 for Kingston Town Centre (the proportion of shoppers that use Kingston town centre for their “high street” comparison goods shopping needs) we consider that a reasonable assumption is that 10% of the centre’s turnover is derived from beyond the Study Area at the base year. This is consistent with the allowance for inflow in the previous study.

2.20 A summary of the differences in expenditure turnover between the 2003 and update studies is shown in Table 2.2. The final row shows the total turnover for Kingston Town

3 MapInfo & Oxford Economic Forecasting: Information Brief 05/02 Goods Based Retail Expenditure Estimates and Prices Indices (September 2005). 4 Source: Hillier Parker National Survey of Local Shopping Patterns. This is shown in Appendix 1 of the RBK Retail Capacity Study 2003.



Centre. This is £1.4 billion in this study, which is around 30% higher than the turnover in the previous study.

Table 2.2 Expenditure and Turnover in the Base Year


Comparison Goods Expenditure (£m) 3,261.8 4,345.1 1,083.3

Deduction for Retail Warehousing (£m)

652.4 869.0 216.6

Town Centre Comparison Goods Expenditure (£m)

2,609.5 3,476.1 866.6

Kingston’s turnover derived from Study Area (£m)

971.6 1,279.1 307.5

Inflow from outside Study Area (£m)

108.0 142.1 34.1

Kingston’s Total Turnover (£m) 1,079.6 1,421.2 341.6

2.21 Finally we divide the total turnover by the net comparison goods sales area to derive the sales density achieved by existing shops, which gives an indication of the current performance of the centre as a whole. The previous study identified that Kingston town centre accommodates 164,739 sqm net of comparison goods floorspace, and there have been no significant changes since.

2.22 The turnover for Kingston Town Centre in the present study equates to a base year sales density of £8,627 per sqm, which is again around 30% higher than the sales density of £6,553 per sqm calculated in the 2003 study for the same year. This high base year sales density is consistent with qualitative perceptions of overtrading in Kingston at the time of our previous study.

2.23 We now move on in Step 2 to calculate the amount of expenditure growth generated in the Study Area in the projection years 2006, 2011 and 2016.

Step 2: Forecasting Population Change within the Study Area and Zones

2.24 As with the base year, we have obtained the latest ward level population estimates from the GLA for the London wards for each of the projection years. In the Surrey wards, the 2001 Census population has been projected forward to 2006, 2011 and 2016 using borough level population growth rates provided by Surrey County Council. The ward level population estimates have then been aggregated up to zone level and are shown in Table 2 in Appendix 2.

2.25 Population is forecast to grow to 1.27 million in 2006, increasing to 1.29 million in 2011 and 1.31 million in 2016. These figures are marginally lower than the population estimates in the previous study. However, as the data for the present study is based on the 2001 Census, it is considered to be more accurate than the population projections used in the 2003 study which were derived from the 1991 Census.

Step 3: Forecasting Expenditure for the Study Area and Zones

2.26 As with the base year data, the per capita comparison goods expenditure estimates for each of the Study Area zones were sourced from MapInfo TargetPro. Data for 2003 at 2003 prices was converted to a 2000 price base and then projected forwards to 2006, 2011 and 2016.

2.27 We have used new information on expenditure growth rates, sourced from MapInfo Information Brief 05/02 (September 2005). The comparison goods expenditure growth rates used in this assessment are as follows:

9.3% real growth for 2003-2004.

3.8% per annum projected growth for 2004-2006.

4.1% per annum projected growth for 2004-2011.



4.3% per annum projected growth for 2004-2016

2.28 These expenditure growth rates are similar to Experian Business Strategies’ (EBS) forecasts of comparison goods growth, particularly in the shorter term. EBS show 9.2% real growth from 2003 to 20045 and forecast 3.9% p.a. and 3.6% p.a. comparison goods growth from 2004 to 2009 and 2014 respectively.

2.29 To reflect the expected continued growth in internet trading, we have used the same levels of deduction for SFT as in the 2003 study – Mapinfo 2002 estimate of 7.6% with 10% growth at each forecast year. These are as follows:

8.4% for 2006

9.2% for 2011

10.0% for 2016

2.30 The per capita comparison goods expenditure forecasts are set out in Table 3 in Appendix 2.

2.31 In 2006, the average per capita comparison goods expenditure figure net of SFT is £4,414, rising to £5,381 in 2011 and £6,672 in 2016. These figures are higher than those set out in the 2003 study due to the fact that in this study the base year per capita expenditure figure is higher, and this is then grown at a range of higher growth rates than in the previous study. Thus the higher per capita expenditure figures in the projection years in this study are the product of the higher starting position and higher growth rates than for the previous study.

2.32 The per capita expenditure growth rates used in the 2003 study were not as reliable as those used in this study. In particular there is a difference between the actual observed growth rates of around 9% from 2002 to 2004 which we have used in this study and the previously assumed expenditure growth rate of 3.6%. It is this key difference between growth achieved immediately after the base year compared with what was projected at the time which explains the major difference between the two sets of projections.

Step 4: Total Expenditure Estimates and Growth

2.33 Having calculated per capita expenditure for each of the Study Area zones we next move on to calculate the total available comparison expenditure in each zone by applying the population projections to per capita expenditure. The resulting total comparison expenditure estimates are presented in Table 4 in Appendix 2. This is summarised in Table 2.3 below, along with a comparison with the previous study.

Table 2.3 Total Expenditure Estimates in the Projection Years (£m)


Total Expenditure 2006 3,825.5 5,603.9 1,778.4

Total Expenditure 2011 4,634.3 6,962.9 2,328.6

Total Expenditure 2016 - 8,753.4 -

Growth in Expenditure 2002 to 2006 563.7 1,258.9 695.2

Growth in Expenditure 2006 to 2011 808.8 1,358.9 550.1

Growth in Expenditure 2011 to 2016 - 1,790.5 -

2.34 Total expenditure for the Study Area is expected to grow by £2.6 billion from 2002 to 2011 compared to growth of £1.4 billion in the earlier study, and by £4.4 billion from 2002 to 2016. This level of growth is substantial and largely resultant from the national trend of continuing growth in per capita comparison goods expenditure and the population growth within some of the Study Area zones. Total expenditure is higher

5 The EBS real growth rate is derived from EBS data on total spending on comparison goods and population shown in the EBS Retail Planner Briefing Notes.



than in the previous study in particular due to the high rates of observed expenditure growth compared to the lower growth levels previously assumed.

Step 5: Town Centre and Non Town Centre Expenditure Growth

2.35 The previous study highlighted the fact that a portion of expenditure generated within the Study Area should be allocated for DIY and garden centre stores outside the town centre. Kingston has a mature retail system with a number of out of centre shopping destinations and thus attracts a high proportion of expenditure on DIY and garden centre goods. Accordingly, in the base year we estimate that 20% of expenditure would be attracted to retail warehouse formats in out of centre locations, as in the 2003 study.

2.36 New government policy suggests that it is not appropriate for such a high proportion of future expenditure growth to be directed towards out of centre locations. Therefore rather than allow for a continuation of this 20% figure, we consider that in the forecast years, a lower proportion of future expenditure growth will be directed towards garden centres and DIY outlets in out of centre locations. RTP have conducted research based on the ONS Consumer Trends publication to establish the proportion of total comparison spending that is undertaken in garden centres and DIY outlets. The research demonstrates that 2.5% of all comparison goods expenditure is made in garden centres and that 7.5% currently is spent on all DIY type products, with the combined proportion being 10%. This research is based on national expenditure data and there will be much local variation, but in our view it provides an indication on the proportion of comparison goods expenditure that is appropriate to locate outside town centres.

2.37 We have allocated 10% of total comparison goods expenditure growth to DIY/garden centre spending in non-town centre locations as it is inappropriate to plan for these forms of retailing in town centres.

2.38 The resulting expenditure growth figures for town centre and non-town centre retailing are set out in Table 5 in Appendix 2 and Table 2.4 below. The table demonstrates that in the period to 2016 comparison goods expenditure available for town centre retailing will grow by approximately £4 billion, with approximately £441 million available for non town centre locations.

Table 2.4 Expenditure Growth for Town Centre and Non Town Centre Locations (£m)

2002 to 2006 2006 to 2011 2011 to 2016 2002 to 2016

Town Centre 1,133.0 1,223.1 1,611.5 3,967.5 Non Town Centre 125.9 135.9 179.1 440.8

Step 6: Total Available Expenditure for Kingston Town Centre

2.39 The next step in the assessment is to calculate total available expenditure for existing and new retailing in Kingston town centre. This consists of two elements:

the available expenditure from the Study Area based on the market shares for each zone; and

an allowance for inflow of expenditure from outside the Study Area.

2.40 In order to calculate available expenditure, we apply Kingston’s market share for each zone to the available growth in expenditure for town centre locations. In the 2003 study we undertook the capacity study using two scenarios based on a) maintaining the existing market shares derived from the household survey; and b) by adjusting market shares downwards to reflect the future retail development requirements in neighbouring authorities. Whilst it is appropriate for Kingston to maintain its market share in the home zone, additional comparison floorspace in neighbouring centres could affect Kingston’s influence over the Study Area in particular in the outer zones.



2.41 Additional comparison goods floorspace is planned for a number of neighbouring centres.

Walton on Thames: Redevelopment of The Centre. Planning permission has been granted for a total of 16,832 sqm gross retail floorspace. This is assumed to be 100% comparison floorspace.

Croydon Gateway: Planning permission has been granted for mixed use development including 10,212 sqm of A1 comparison floorspace as well as convenience floorspace and food and drink uses.

Park Place (Croydon): planning permission has been granted for a four level department store and a three level shopping centre with 110 units. Total floorspace is 122,540 sqm of which over 75,000 sqm is A1 space.

Guildford: Planning permission has been granted for an extension of the Friary Centre to provide an additional 24,923 sqm gross retail floorspace. This is assumed to be 100% comparison floorspace.

Crawley Town Centre North: Master plan proposals have been published for a 14.2 hectare site to the north of the town centre. The scheme is expected to house approximately 65,000 sqm of retail development and be anchored by a department store.

2.42 In this study we have refined the approach using a combination of the two previous scenarios. Up to 2011, since it will not be possible to implement any major development much before 2011, we have adjusted the market share for Kingston town centre from each of the Study Area zones to levels which we believe reflect the likely impact of development within or adjacent to Kingston’s catchment area in the short to medium term. The adjusted market shares take into account these new developments and proposals coming forward elsewhere, and build in an allowance for the future development requirements of neighbouring authorities.

2.43 After 2011, when we assume that new development will have taken place, we revert to the market shares observed by the 2002 household survey, to reflect the increased influence that additional comparison floorspace in Kingston Town Centre could have on the outer zones. We assume any additional retail floorspace will enhance Kingston’s market share back to the levels observed through the 2002 Household Survey.

2.44 In the 2003 study we allowed for a 10% inflow of expenditure from outside the Study Area in the base year, based on the Hillier Parker National Survey of Local Shopping Patterns. No inflow was allowed in the projection years and we consider that it was inconsistent to allow an inflow in the base year and not to continue in the projection years. In this study we have revised this approach. We consider there will be a 5% inflow of expenditure up to 2011, which is lower than the base year inflow to reflect the impact of new developments coming forward elsewhere. After 2011, we raise the inflow back up to 10% to take into consideration the effect of new floorspace in Kingston on its draw from outside the Study Area.

2.45 From 2002 to 2016, inflow from outside the Study Area is expected to generate a total of £96 million additional expenditure.

2.46 Projected total comparison goods expenditure is illustrated in Table 6 (2006), Table 7 (2011) and Table 8 (2016) in Appendix 2.

Table 2.5 Total comparison goods expenditure available to Kingston Town Centre (£m)

Expenditure 2003 Study 2006 Study Differential

2002 to 2006 190.7 355.7 165.0

2006 to 2011 275.4 387.9 112.5

2011 to 2016 - 665.9 -



2.47 Total available comparison goods expenditure is higher in the present study than in the 2003 study, with the difference reflecting, in particular, the higher expenditure growth rates achieved between 2002 and 2004 and the allowance for expenditure inflow.

2.48 The growth in the period 2011 to 2016 is considerably higher than the earlier periods. This is because, as explained above, Kingston is expected to retain a higher proportion of the available Study Area expenditure in that period.

Step 7: Improved Efficiency of Existing Floorspace

2.49 Not all expenditure growth is available for new floorspace. A proportion of the available expenditure for Kingston will be absorbed through improvements in the efficiency of the existing retail sales floorspace. A report by Experian Business Strategies for the GLA6 indicates that sales density productivity growth could range from 1.5% per annum (the low case – and that used in the 2003 study) to 3.0% per annum (the high case). The report emphasises that historical estimates of trend productivity growth are national and not London specific, and that because of higher rents and other factors, productivity growth in London may have out-performed the national average in the past but may not continue to do so in the future. Experian’s pan-London study takes a cautious approach by applying both the 2.5% and the 2.0% p.a. growth scenarios. However, because Experian’s work demonstrates that there are quite pronounced differences between sales density growth in different centres and areas, and because it indicates London sales density rises out-perform the national average, we have used the upper end of the range suggested by Experian (3%). This approach reflects the current high sales density being achieved in Kingston and the implied high rate of sales density growth achieved.

2.50 Existing floorspace trades at an average of £8,627 per sqm in the base year. By 2006, it is expected to trade at £9,710 per sqm, rising to £11,256 per sqm in 2011 and £13,049 per sqm in 2016.

2.51 The effects of increasing the sales density of existing floorspace are shown in Table 2.6 below. In this study, the increased sales density will absorb £729 million from 2002 to 2016, leaving £651million residual expenditure for new comparison floorspace in Kingston Town Centre over the period to 2016.

Table 2.6 Residual Expenditure (£m)

2003 Study7 2006 Study Differential

Total Available Expenditure 190.7 355.7 165.0 Deduction for Improved Sales Density 59.6 178.4 118.8 2002 to 2006

Residual Expenditure 131.1 177.3 46.2

Total Available Expenditure 275.4 387.9 112.5 Deduction for Improved Sales Density 79.7 254.8 175.1 2006 to 2011

Residual Expenditure 195.7 133.2 -62.5

Total Available Expenditure - 665.9 - Deduction for Improved Sales Density - 295.3 - 2011 to 2016

Residual Expenditure - 370.5 -

6 Experian Business Strategies for the GLA, “London Town Centre Assessment Stage 1 – Comparison Goods Floorspace Need”, September 2004. 7 Based on Scenario a) constant market shares.



Step 8: Floorspace Growth Potential

2.52 The final step involves converting the residual available expenditure to a net new floorspace requirement. The current sales density of existing floorspace in the base year was £8,627 per sqm. This is high and indicates that comparison floorspace in Kingston town centre is currently overtrading. We consider that new floorspace in a major development incorporating a department store would trade at a lower sales density thereby effectively diluting current levels of overtrading in the centre. We have used a sales density for large scale modern development of £8,000 per sqm in 2006 and 2011, rising to £8,500 per sqm in 2016.

2.53 Applying these sales densities to the residual expenditure in the projection years gives the net floorspace growth potential, as is shown in Table 2.7 below. In the period to 2006, there is a requirement for approximately 22,200 sqm net of new floorspace. An additional 16,600 sqm net could be supported by 2011, and a further 43,600 sqm net by 2016. In summary therefore in addition to the current 164,739 sqm net (241,378 sqm gross) of comparison goods retail floorspace, we project a need for an additional 38,800 sqm net by 2011(a 24% floorspace increase), with a further 43,600 sqm net thereafter (a cumulative floorspace increase of 50%).

Table 2.7 Floorspace Growth Potential

2003 Study8 2006 Study Differential Cumulative

Growth

Residual Expenditure (£m) 131.1 177.3 46.2

Sales density of new floorspace (£/sqm)

6,500 8,000 1,500 2006

Floorspace Growth Potential (sqm net)

20,166 22,162 1,996 22,162

Residual Expenditure (£m) 195.7 133.2 -62.5

Sales density of new floorspace (£/sqm)

7,000 8,000 1,000 2011


27,962 16,645 -11,317 38,807

Residual Expenditure (£m) - 370.5 - -

Sales density of new floorspace (£/sqm) - 8,500 - - 2016

Floorspace Growth Potential (sqm net) - 43,591 - 82,398

Conclusions on Comparison Goods Floorspace Capacity 2.54 As shown in Table 2.8 below, based on the future estimates of available expenditure, it

is expected that there will be sufficient expenditure to support in the region of 22,200 sqm net of comparison goods floorspace in Kingston town centre by 2006. There is sufficient expenditure to support an additional 16,600 sqm net by 2011 and 43,600 sqm net by 2016. The cumulative comparison goods floorspace growth potential is therefore 38,800 sqm net by 2011 (a 24% floorspace increase), and 82,400 sqm net by 2016 (a cumulative increase of 50%).

8 Based on Scenario a) constant market shares.



Table 2.8 Comparison Goods Summary Outputs

2006 2011 2016

Total growth in expenditure (£m) 1,133.0 1,223.1 1,611.5

Available expenditure (£m) 338.7 369.5 605.3

Inflow from outside the Study Area (£m) 16.9 18.5 30.3

Total available expenditure (£m) 355.7 387.9 635.6

Deduction for improved sales density (£m) 178.4 254.8 295.3

Residual expenditure(£m) 177.3 133.2 340.3

Assumed sales density (£/sqm) 8,000 8,000 8,500

Floorspace growth potential (sqm net) 22,162 16,645 43,591

2.55 For comparability purposes with the previous study, we have provided separate floorspace growth figures for 2006 and 2011. In practice, given the lead time necessary for planning, detailed design and construction of any proposed development, it is unlikely that any new additional comparison goods floorspace will be completed before 2011. The growth potential for 2006 and 2011 should be considered as one. To 2011 there is potential for 38,800 sqm net floorspace, which equates to 55,400 sqm gross. The cumulative total floorspace potential is 82,400 sqm net (117,700 sqm gross) from 2002 to 2016.

2.56 It should be noted that development in the short term (i.e. to 2011) could have an effect on the longer term need, as any additional floorspace in Kingston will increase the deduction made for improved sales density, thus reducing the need in the longer term. Thus, depending on exactly how much comparison floorspace is built and let by 2011 (or thereabouts) an allowance will need to be taken of the potential increase in sales density.

Table 2.9 Floorspace Growth Potential - Comparisons with the Original Study Floorspace growth potential (sqm net)


2006 20,166 22,162 1,996

2011 27,962 16,645 -11,317

2016 - 43,591 -

2.57 The overall floorspace potential of 38,800 sqm net to 2011 is lower than that identified in the 2003 study (48,100 sqm net). In the previous study a greater floorspace potential was identified in the latter period, whereas in this study floorspace growth potential is greater in the early period to 2006 than in the following period to 2011. The main reason for the higher floorspace growth potential to 2006 is the high expenditure growth rates from 2002 to 2004 used in this study, as sourced from MapInfo. The reason for the lower floorspace requirement between 2006 and 2011 is the use of higher sales densities (and sales density growth) due to the increased base year estimate of turnover achieved.

Sensitivity Test 2.58 The current buoyant economic cycle has continued since late 2003/early 2004. In this

period consumer spending on comparison goods, reflecting an expanding UK economy, has continued at a high level. It is not axiomatic that this level of consumer spending will continue at a similarly high rate despite the relatively optimistic forecasts provided by Oxford Economic Forecasting and Experian Business Strategies.

2.59 It is evident that consumer spending has been partly fuelled by the availability of credit in recent years, either through property based borrowing (re-mortgaging or asset




release) or the promotion of credit card spending. The recent increase in interest rates and the Bank of England’s latest Inflation Report point to the prospect of both an increase in inflation and further hikes in interest rates. This will reduce the incidence of credit card spending and property related spending.

2.60 The effects of quite small changes in growth rates for consumer spending when compounded over 5-10 years can have significant implications for the quantum of additional retail floorspace which is required. Consequently, we have undertaken a sensitivity test on comparison goods expenditure growth to assess the implications of reduced consumer spending as a result of a general tightening of credit, associated with either further increases in interest rates or a downturn in the economy (or both). Another factor that will influence consumer spending in retail shops is the scale of change in internet purchases. The two key variables here are the propensity to shop ‘on-line’ and the rate of roll-out of broadband connections. There is insufficient hard evidence on the likely extent of changes on these points so we have not undertaken a sensitivity test on our core SFT assumptions.

2.61 Our sensitivity test is applied solely to comparison goods spending. The variations in rates of growth in consumer spending on convenience goods is far less extreme than for comparison goods expenditure and, additionally, less tied to an increase in debt.

2.62 There have been previous historic periods when a downturn in the economy has occurred between economically buoyant periods. These recessions are reflected in lower growth in per capita comparison goods expenditure sandwiched between periods of higher growth in expenditure. In the five year period 1980 to 1984 the average growth in per capita comparison goods expenditure was 3.5% per annum10. It then rose to over 6% per annum on average in the intervening period before declining to 2.2% per annum11 in the five years between 1989 and 1993.

2.63 Accordingly, we have undertaken a sensitivity test to forecast comparison goods floorspace potential taking into consideration the implications of a five year downturn in comparison goods spending.

2.64 To represent a downturn in spending comparable to the periods 1980 to 1984 and 1989 to 1993 outlined above, we have reduced the per capita comparison goods expenditure growth rate from 2007 - 2011 to 3.0% per annum. For all other years we have used the MapInfo growth rates, as shown at paragraph 2.27.

10 Calculated from Data Consultancy Information Brief 98/2, Table 1. 11 Calculated from MapInfo Information Brief 05/2, Table 1.



2.65 The implications of this reduced per capita comparison goods growth from 2007 to 2011 on expenditure and ultimately floorspace potential is shown in Table 2.10 below.

Table 2.10 Economic Downturn Sensitivity Test: Floorspace Growth Potential

Original Sensitivity

Test Differential

Residual Expenditure (£m) 177.3 177.3 0 2002 to 2006


22,162 22,162 0

Residual Expenditure (£m) 133.2 40.9 92.3 2006 to 2011

Floorspace Growth Potential (sqm net) 16,645 5,114 11,531



43,591 35,093 8,498



82,398 62,369 20,029

2.66 Reducing the expenditure growth rate to 3% between 2007 to 2011 has the effect of reducing the overall floorspace potential by 20,000 sqm net, to 62,000 sqm net in the period 2002 to 2016.

2.67 Clearly this sensitivity test does not influence the quantum of consumer spending which has been “accumulating” up to now (2006). However, any large scale development being progressed at the present time is unlikely to be built and occupied before 2011 or 2012. The implication, therefore, is that a large scale development being promoted currently may need to call upon some of the growth in spending in the early years in the period after 2011.





3 NEEDS ASSESSMENT – CONVENIENCE GOODS

3.1 In this section we set out our assessment of the need for additional convenience goods retail floorspace to 2016. Due to the more dispersed provision of convenience goods, and to replicate the method in the 2003 study this assessment considers the Borough-wide requirement.

3.2 As with the previous study, we adopt the position that convenience goods expenditure and floorspace are in equilibrium. This position is not unreasonable given the quantity and quality of the existing provision within the Borough’s centres. Indeed the three District Centres all function primarily as convenience goods shopping centres and are successful in doing so.

3.3 All results are shown in Tables 9 to 12 in Appendix 4.

Study Area 3.4 The Study Area for the convenience goods needs assessment is based on the Study

Area defined in the 2003 study. The Study Area (illustrated on the map at Appendix 3) includes all the RBK wards, but also includes Long Ditton in Elmbridge and Hampton Wick in Richmond. This Study Area is selected to equate to the primary catchment area for convenience goods provision within the Borough.

Methodology 3.5 We have employed an approach to the need assessment that is consistent with the

methodology used in the 2003 study. A detailed outline of the methodology used for calculating additional comparison goods floorspace can be found in Chapter 4 of the RBK Retail Capacity Study (July 2003), from Para 4.54 to 4.68. In some cases the methodology, data sources and assumptions used here differ to those used in the original study. Where this is the case, we explain the differences.

Step 1: Study Area Population

3.6 The population estimates are the latest available ward-level population estimates and projections from the GLA12 for the whole of the convenience goods Study Area for the years 2002, 2006, 2011 and 2016. There is only one non-London ward in the convenience goods Study Area: Long Ditton in Elmbridge. To obtain population projections for this ward, the 2001 Census population has been projected forward using the Elmbridge Borough population forecasts provided by Surrey County Council.

3.7 The population data is shown in Table 9 in Appendix 4. This demonstrates that the Study Area population in 2002 was approximately 165,000. This is expected to rise by 3,000 by 2006, by a further 4,000 to 2011 and by 3,500 from 2011 to 2016. These figures are marginally lower than the population totals in the 2003 study a finding consistent with that for the comparison goods assessment. However, as the current data is sourced from the 2001 Census it is considered to be more accurate than previous estimates.

12 GLA "R2005 Interim Ward Projections".



Table 3.1 Population – Comparisons with the Previous Study


2002 166,174 165,039 -1,135

2006 170,999 169,035 -1,964

2011 175,086 172,017 -3,069

2016 - 175,515 -

Step 2: Expenditure Estimates and Growth

3.8 We have used revised per capita convenience goods expenditure estimates and growth rates. The data obtained is the latest available, that is 2003 expenditure estimates at 2003 prices. In order to allow consistency with the previous study, this is converted to a 2000 price base.

3.9 The real and estimated growth rates set out in MapInfo Information Brief 05/02 (September 2005) and used in this assessment are as follows:

0.6% real growth for 2002-03

1.6% real growth for 2003-04



3.10 A deduction of 0.9% is made from the per capita expenditure estimates to reflect spending via Special Forms of Trading (SFT). This is consistent with the 2003 study. The per capita convenience goods expenditure figures after deduction for SFT for the update and 2003 studies, are outlined in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 Per Capita Convenience Goods Expenditure (£)


2002 1,522 1,675 153

2006 1,540 1,739 199

2011 1,564 1,810 246

2016 - 1,906 -

3.11 The per capita expenditure figures used in the present study are higher than those used in the 2003 study. This is partially due to higher projected expenditure growth rates in the present study - forecast growth rates between 0.6% and 1.6% per annum compared to the 0.3% per annum growth rate in 2003. Furthermore, the data used in this study takes into account the 2001 Census data and Regional Accounts and is therefore considered to be more accurate than the previous data.

3.12 We next calculate the available convenience goods expenditure in the Study Area by applying the population projections to the per capita expenditure. The resulting total expenditure estimates for the Study Area, generated over the time horizon, are summarised below. Overall, convenience goods expenditure is projected to grow by £58 million in the period to 2016.



Table 3.3 Convenience Goods Expenditure (£M)


Total Expenditure 2002 249.1 276.4 27.3



Total Expenditure 2016 - 334.6

Growth in Expenditure 2002 to 2006

10.3 15.9 5.6

Growth in Expenditure 2006 to 2011 10.2 19.1 8.9

Growth in Expenditure 2011 to 2016

- 23.2 -

3.13 The projected expenditure growth for convenience goods in the current study is considerably higher than the previous study, due to the higher per capita expenditure rates used here. What is notable is that in the previous study, a similar magnitude of expenditure growth was forecast in both periods, whereas in the current study the growth in expenditure is greater in the latter years.

Step 3: Expenditure Growth Available for Supermarkets and the Convenience Stores Sector

3.14 Next we calculate the proportion of expenditure available for supermarkets and local convenience shopping, as per Para 4.64 and 4.65 of the previous study. The latest Expenditure and Food Survey13 identifies that nationally supermarkets account for approximately 70% of convenience goods spending in retail outlets. Therefore, we allocate convenience goods expenditure growth available for supermarket and local convenience store on the basis of a 70:30 ratio. The resultant growth in expenditure is as follows:

Table 3.4 Convenience Goods Expenditure Available for Local Convenience Stores and Supermarkets

2002 to 2006 2006 to 2011 2011 to 2016

Local Convenience Store Expenditure (£m) 4.8 5.7 7.0

Supermarket Expenditure (£m) 11.1 13.4 16.2

3.15 Over the whole period to 2016, there will be an additional £41m expenditure available for supermarket retailing, with a further £17 million available for local convenience stores.

Step 4: Capacity for New Convenience Goods Floorspace

3.16 The floorspace capacity calculations for supermarket retailing in the base and projection years are set out in Table 3.5 below.

3.17 In the previous study we used a range of sales densities, from £8,500 per sqm to £11,000 per sqm. However, based on new evidence of supermarket sales densities, we have used revised estimates of the sales density of new floorspace. We consider that in 2006 a small supermarket or discount store could achieve a sales density of around £5,000 per sqm and a larger supermarket could achieve a sales density of around £10,000 per sqm. Convenience goods sales densities are expected to rise at a rate of approximately 0.75% per annum.

13 ONS, Family Spending. A report on the 2001-2002 Expenditure and Food Survey (2003)



Table 3.5 Supermarket Convenience Goods Floorspace Capacity

Year 2002 to 2006 2006 to 2011 2011 to 2016

Residual Expenditure (£m) 11.1 13.4 16.2

Sales Density - small supermarket (£/sqm) 5,000 5,190 5,388

Sales Density - large supermarket (£/sqm) 10,000 10,381 10,776

Floorspace Capacity - small supermarket / discounter (sqm net)

2,221 2,574 3,014

Floorspace Capacity - mainstream supermarket operator (sqm net)

1,111 1,287 1,507

3.18 On this basis there will be expenditure potential to support between 3,900 sqm and 7,800 sqm net additional convenience goods floorspace in the Borough’s centres from 2002 to 2016. This is dependent on the operator, with the lower figure equating to the mainstream supermarket operators.

Conclusions on Convenience Goods Floorspace Capacity 3.19 This study identifies a higher level of convenience floorspace provision than the

previous study, as illustrated in Table 3.6. This is due to higher estimates of per capita expenditure used in the current study.

Table 3.6 Floorspace Growth Potential - Comparisons with the Original Study

2003 Study 2006 Study

2002 to 2006 657 to 850 1,111 to 2,221

2006 to 2011 650 to 841 1,287 to 2,574

2011 to 2016 - 1,507 to 3,014

3.20 The scale of the future capacity for convenience floorspace growth within the Study Area over the period to 2016 is fairly limited. Some growth may be absorbed by increases in the sales density of existing floorspace, resulting in a lower level of floorspace requirement, although we have not specifically sought to quantify the extent of this.

3.21 We consider that given the relatively limited amount of additional floorspace capacity, there is no need for any major site specific allocations of convenience floorspace. Proposals for extensions to existing town centre stores or new development in town centres should reflect advice in PPS6 and are acceptable in practice.



4 RETAIL REQUIREMENTS 4.1 The FOCUS14 Retailer Requirements for Kingston are set out in Appendix 5 and

summarized in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Retailer Requirements in Kingston Use Class Number %

A1 Comparison 81 66% A1 Convenience 7 6% A2 Financial & Professional 3 2% A3 Restaurants & Cafés 25 20% A4 Drinking Establishments 2 2% A5 Hot Food Takeaway 5 4% Total 123 100%

4.2 There are currently 123 retail operators seeking representation within Kingston. This is a higher requirement than in both Croydon, where 88 retailers are seeking representation, and Guildford, where 111 retailers are seeking representation. In the previous study a total of 70 retailers were seeking representation in Kingston15, compared to 55 for Croydon and 95 for Guildford.

4.3 The Management Horizons Shopping Index for 2003-04 classes all three centres as Major Regional Centres, but Kingston (16) is ranked higher than Guildford (20) and Croydon (30). The healthy requirement for space in Kingston reflects the view held by retailers that Kingston is a very good trading location.

4.4 The majority of retailers seeking space in Kingston are A1 comparison retailers, representing the broad spectrum of these types of goods – shoes and clothing, household goods, jewellers, gift shops and electrical goods.

4.5 In addition to the comparison retailers, there are a number of convenience and food and drink operators also seeking space in Kingston.

4.6 The increase in the number of retailers seeking representation in Kingston town centre – 123 in 2006 compared to 70 in 2003, albeit based on a different source, is indicative of rising demand, which is reflected in growth in rental values with prime rents in 2005 achieving £3,175 per sqm compared to £2,700 per sqm in 2003 (source CEL). There is therefore clear evidence of considerable competition between traders for representation in Kingston town centre, which is driving up rentals. The longer term impact of this upward movement in rentals will be polarisation of the retail offer to representation by high value commodity traders able to compete for the currently limited space available.

14 FOCUS is a source of commercial property information which provides data on acquisitions and disposals, retailer requirements and property availability and town profiles. 15 It should be noted that in the previous study, retailer requirements were sourced from Estates Gazette Interactive.





5 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 This study has updated the previous retail capacity study for Kingston undertaken in

2003. We have used new population and expenditure data and have altered several assumptions in the light of new information. We have also taken the study forward to 2016. Comparisons with the previous study are only available to 2011.

5.2 Our assessment of comparison goods floorspace capacity reveals that there is sufficient expenditure potential to support a total of 82,398 sqm net (117,710 sqm gross) of additional comparison goods floorspace between 2002 and 2016, an increase of 50% on the current 164,739 sqm net (241,378 sqm gross). Table 5.1 below shows the net sales and gross floorspace requirements over three projection periods.

Table 5.1 Comparison Goods Floorspace Growth Potential Summary Floorspace growth potential (sqm)


Net 20,166 22,162 1,996 2006

Gross 28,809 31,661 2,852

Net 27,962 16,645 -11,317 2011

Gross 39,946 23,778 -16,168

Net - 43,591 - 2016

Gross - 62,273 -

5.3 Comparisons with the previous study reveal that the comparison goods floorspace growth potential of 38,800 sqm net from 2002 to 2011 is over 9,000 sqm net lower than the previous estimate of 48,100 sqm net over the same period.

5.4 The higher comparison goods floorspace growth potential to 2006 results from changes to the base comparison goods expenditure and observed short term growth levels. These changes are partially due to improvements in the quality of the per capita expenditure estimates reflecting inputs from the 2001 Census and a move to regional rather than national data. This provides a higher base year expenditure position than in the previous study and this difference is then exacerbated by the higher expenditure growth rates used in the current study. This is tempered by more robust evidence on sales density growth.

5.5 We have undertaken a sensitivity test to reflect the implications of a possible downturn in consumer spending either as a result of higher interest rates or a downturn in the economy (or both). This is solely for comparison goods. Changes in convenience goods spending are not as volatile as with comparison goods. The comparison goods floorspace potential by 2016 under this sensitivity test scenario amounts to 62,000 sqm net between 2002 to 2016, which is around 20,000 sqm net lower than using the standard expenditure growth rates. Thus in round figures, between 2002-2016, there is a projected requirement of between 62,000 (88,500 sqm gross) and 82,000 sqm of net (117,710 sqm gross) additional comparison goods floorspace in Kingston. Within this range the outcome is likely to be determined by national economic effects over the next few years.

5.6 A greater level of convenience goods floorspace has also been identified in this study than the previous study. From 2002 to 2006 we have identified convenience floorspace capacity of 1,111sqm to 2,221 sqm depending on the retail format. An additional 1,287 sqm to 2,574 sqm is available to 2011 and a further 1,507sqm to 3,014 sqm by 2016. This higher level of identified need than the previous study results from increased expenditure growth combined with new information on convenience goods retail formats and their sales densities.




APPENDIX 1 Comparison Goods Study Area – Map & Schedule of Wards

Schedule of Wards within the Zones Zone Number

Zone Name Ward Number

Alexandra 1 Berrylands 2 Beverley 3 Canbury 4 Chessington North and Hook 5 Chessington South 6 Claygate 7 Coombe Hill 8 Coombe Vale 9 Esher 10 Fulwell and Hampton Hill 11 Grove 12 Hampton 13 Hampton North 14 Hampton Wick 15 Hersham North 16 Hersham South 17 Hinchley Wood 18 Long Ditton 19 Molesey East 20 Molesey North 21 Molesey South 22 Norbiton 23 Old Malden 24 St James 25 St Mark's 26 Surbiton Hill 27 Teddington 28 Thames Ditton 29 Tolworth and Hook Rise 30 Tudor 31 Walton Ambleside 32 Walton Central 33 Walton North 34 Walton South 35

Zone 1 Kingston

Weston Green 36 East Sheen 37 Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside 38 Kew 39 North Richmond 40 South Richmond 41 St Margarets and North Twickenham 42

Zone 2 Richmond

Twickenham Riverside 43 Abbey 44 Cannon Hill 45

Zone 3 Wimbledon

Colliers Wood 46

Zone Number


Dundonald 47 Hillside 48 Merton Park 49 Raynes Park 50 Trinity 51 Village 52 West Barnes 53 West Hill 54

Wimbledon Park 55 Bedfont 56 Brentford 57 Cranford 58 Feltham North 59 Feltham West 60 Hanworth 61 Hanworth Park 62 Heathfield 63 Heston Central 64 Heston East 65 Heston West 66 Hounslow Central 67 Hounslow Heath 68 Hounslow South 69 Hounslow West 70 Isleworth 71 Osterley and Spring Grove 72 South Twickenham 73 Syon 74 West Twickenham 75

Zone 4 Hounslow

Whitton 76 Ashford Common 77 Ashford East 78 Ashford Town 79 Halliford and Sunbury West 80 Laleham and Shepperton Green 81 Shepperton Town 82 Sunbury Common 83

Zone 5 West

Sunbury East 84 Ashtead Common 85 Ashtead Park 86 Ashtead Village 87 Auriol 88 College 89 Court 90 Ewell 91 Ewell Court 92 Nonsuch 93 Ruxley 94

Zone 6 Epsom

Stamford 95

Zone Number


Stoneleigh 96 Tattenhams 97 Town 98 West Ewell 99

Woodcote 100 Bookham North 101 Bookham South 102 Cobham and Downside 103 Cobham Fairmile 104 Fetcham East 105 Fetcham West 106 Leatherhead North 107 Leatherhead South 108 Oatlands Park 109 Oxshott and Stoke D'Abernon 110 St George's Hill 111 Weybridge North 112

Zone 7 South West

Weybridge South 113 Barnes 114 Bedford 115 Chiswick Homefields 116 Chiswick Riverside 117 Earlsfield 118 East Putney 119 Fairfield 120 Graveney 121 Mortlake and Barnes Common 122 Nightingale 123 Roehampton 124 Southfield 125 Southfields 126 Thamesfield 127 Tooting 128 Turnham Green 129 Wandsworth Common 130

Zone 8 North East

West Putney 131 Belmont 132 Cheam 133 Cuddington 134 Lower Morden 135 Nonsuch 136 Ravensbury 137 St Helier 138 Stonecot 139 Sutton Central 140 Sutton North 141 Sutton South 142 Sutton West 143

Zone 9 Sutton

Worcester Park 144

APPENDIX 2 Retail Capacity Calculation Tables – Comparison Goods

Table 1: Comparison Goods - Base Year Position (2002)

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 All Zones

Total

Population [1] 283,529 69,323 119,553 221,880 54,451 82,337 65,479 229,686 121,964 1,248,203

Per capita expenditure (£) [2] 3,489 4,240 3,961 2,895 2,940 3,136 3,627 4,029 2,991

Total Comparison Goods Expenditure (£m) [3] 989.2 293.9 473.6 642.4 160.1 258.2 237.5 925.4 364.8 4,345.1

Comparison Goods Expenditure Available for Town Centre Retailing (£m) [4] 791.3 235.2 378.8 513.9 128.0 206.6 190.0 740.3 291.9 3,476.1

Market Share for Kingston Town Centre (%) [5] 70.0% 36.1% 29.7% 33.1% 34.9% 31.2% 29.9% 18.2% 19.5%

Turnover Derived from Study Area (£m) [6] 553.9 84.9 112.5 170.1 44.7 64.5 56.8 134.7 56.9 1,279.1

Inflow from outside Study Area (%) [7] 10%

Total Turnover (£m) [8] 1,421.2

Sales Area (sqm net) [9] 164,739 Current Sales Density (£/sqm) [10] 8,626.8

NOTES: [1] Population is taken from the GLA 2005 Interim Ward Projections for 2002 (London) and the 2001 Census population (Surrey) which has been projected forward to 2002 using population growth rates by borough provided by Surrey County Council. [2] Source: All data derived from MapInfo 2003 per capita annual comparison goods expenditure estimates in 2003 prices. The 2003 estimates are converted to 2000 prices and projected backward to base year using MapInfo actual observed growth rate of 8.7% from 2002 to 2003 (MapInfo Information Brief 05/2). A deduction is made for expenditure via special forms of trading (SFT) such as mail order and internet shopping. For 2002 a deduction of 6% is made. [3] The total expenditure is the product of the population and per capita comparison goods expenditure. The figures are in millions of pounds (£m). [4] The available expenditure for town centre retail incorporates a deduction of 20% to represent the amount of expenditure currently spent in out-of-centre retail warehousing. [5] The comparison goods market share for Kingston town centre are derived from the RBK Retail Study Household Survey. [6] The turnover figures are the product of rows 4 and 5. [7] RTP estimate of proportion of turnover derived from outside the Study Area. [8] The total turnover for Kingston town centre. [9] Source: RBK 2001 Shop Survey data, and applying a 70:30 ratio for net:gross. [10] The product of total turnover divided by the sales area. All monetary values are held constant at 2000 prices.

Table 2: Population Forecasts in the Projection Years


Total Population 2002 283,529 69,323 119,553 221,880 54,451 82,337 65,479 229,686 121,964 1,248,203 Population 2006 290,192 69,219 119,734 228,341 54,028 84,093 67,324 233,221 123,119 1,269,273 Population 2011 298,219 70,687 121,287 231,730 54,210 86,750 69,533 236,225 125,295 1,293,936 Population 2016 305,650 70,977 121,463 234,733 54,635 89,594 71,824 237,355 126,231 1,312,461 Change in Population 2002 to 2006 Numeric change 6,664 -104 181 6,461 -423 1,756 1,845 3,535 1,155 21,070 Percentage change 2.4% -0.2% 0.2% 2.9% -0.8% 2.1% 2.8% 1.5% 0.9% 1.7% Change in Population 2006 to 2011 Numeric change 8,027 1,467 1,553 3,389 182 2,657 2,209 3,004 2,175 24,663 Percentage change 2.8% 2.1% 1.3% 1.5% 0.3% 3.2% 3.3% 1.3% 1.8% 1.9% Change in Population 2011 to 2016 Numeric change 7,431 290 176 3,002 425 2,844 2,291 1,130 937 18,525 Percentage change 2.5% 0.4% 0.1% 1.3% 0.8% 3.3% 3.3% 0.5% 0.7% 1.4% Change in Population 2002 to 2016 Numeric change 22,121 1,654 1,909 12,852 184 7,257 6,345 7,669 4,267 64,258 Percentage change 7.8% 2.4% 1.6% 5.8% 0.3% 8.8% 9.7% 3.3% 3.5% 5.1%

NOTES:

Population is taken from the GLA 2005 Interim Ward Projections for 2002, 2006, 2011 and 2016 (London) and the 2001 Census population (Surrey) which has been projected forward to 2002, 2006, 2011 and 2016 using population growth rates by borough provided by Surrey County Council.

Table 3: Comparison Goods Expenditure in the Projection Years (per capita)

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9

(£) (£) (£) (£) (£) (£) (£) (£) (£)

2002 3,489 4,240 3,961 2,895 2,940 3,136 3,627 4,029 2,991 2006 4,427 5,381 5,027 3,674 3,730 3,980 4,602 5,113 3,796 2011 5,396 6,559 6,127 4,478 4,547 4,851 5,609 6,232 4,627 2016 6,691 8,133 7,597 5,553 5,638 6,015 6,956 7,727 5,737

NOTES: All data derived from MapInfo 2003 per capita annual comparison goods expenditure estimates in 2003 prices. The 2003 estimates are converted to 2000 prices and projected forwards using growth rates of 9.3% from 2003-04, 3.8% from 2004-06, 4.1% from 2004-11 and 4.3% from 2004-16 (MapInfo Information Brief 05/2). A deduction is made for expenditure via special forms of trading (SFT) such as mail order and internet shopping. In 2002 a deduction of 7.6% is made, rising to 8.4% in 2006, 9.2% in 2011 and 10.0% in 2016.

Table 4: Total Comparison Goods Expenditure and Expenditure Growth in the Projection Years


Total (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 2002 989.2 293.9 473.6 642.4 160.1 258.2 237.5 925.4 364.8 4,345.1

2006 1,284.8 372.5 601.9 838.9 201.5 334.7 309.8 1,192.5 467.3 5,603.9

2002 1,609.3 463.6 743.1 1,037.7 246.5 420.8 390.0 1,472.1 579.7 6,962.9

2002 2,045.2 577.2 922.8 1,303.4 308.0 538.9 499.6 1,834.2 724.2 8,753.4

Growth in Expenditure 2002 to 2006 (£m) 295.6 78.5 128.3 196.5 41.5 76.5 72.4 267.0 102.5 1,258.9



Growth in Expenditure 2002 to 2016 (£m) 1,056.0 283.3 449.2 661.0 148.0 280.7 262.1 908.7 359.4 4,408.3

NOTES: The figures in the above table are the products of the data presented in Tables 2 (population) and 3 (per capita comparison goods expenditure) and are in millions of pounds (£m). All monetary values are held constant at 2000 prices.

Table 5: Comparison Goods Expenditure Growth Available for Town Centre and Non-Town Centre Locations


Total (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) Town Centre

2002 to 2006 266.1 70.7 115.5 176.9 37.3 68.8 65.1 240.3 92.3 1,133.0

2006 to 2011 292.0 82.0 127.1 178.9 40.4 77.5 72.2 251.7 101.1 1,223.1

2011 to 2016 392.3 102.3 161.7 239.1 55.4 106.3 98.6 325.8 130.0 1,611.5

2002 to 2016 950.4 254.9 404.3 594.9 133.2 252.6 235.9 817.9 323.4 3,967.5

Non Town Centre

2002 to 2006 29.6 7.9 12.8 19.7 4.1 7.6 7.2 26.7 10.3 125.9

2006 to 2011 32.4 9.1 14.1 19.9 4.5 8.6 8.0 28.0 11.2 135.9

2011 to 2016 43.6 11.4 18.0 26.6 6.2 11.8 11.0 36.2 14.4 179.1

2002 to 2016 105.6 28.3 44.9 66.1 14.8 28.1 26.2 90.9 35.9 440.8

NOTES: The figures in the above table are derived from the growth figures in Table 4. 90% of the total amount of comparison goods expenditure is forecast to be available for town centre retailing and 10% for retailing that cannot be accommodated within town centres. All monetary values are held constant at 2000 prices.

Table 6: Kingston Town Centre Comparison Goods Floorspace Growth Potential – 2006


Total

Total Growth in Expenditure 2002-2006 (£m) [1] 266.1 70.7 115.5 176.9 37.3 68.8 65.1 240.3 92.3 1,133.0

Market Share 70.0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0%

Available Expenditure (£m) 186.2 21.2 23.1 35.4 9.3 17.2 13.0 24.0 9.2 338.7

Inflow from outside the Study Area (£m) [2] 16.9

Total Available Expenditure (£m) 355.7

Deduction for Improved Efficiency of Existing Floorspace (£m) [3]

178.4

Residual Expenditure (£m) [4] 177.3

Assumed Sales Density (£/sqm) [5] 8,000

Floorspace Growth Potential (sqm net) [6] 22,162

NOTES: [1] The total growth in expenditure is derived from Table 5. [2] RTP estimate of 5% of turnover derived from outside the Study Area. [3] We build-in a floorspace efficiency of 3.0% per annum throughout the whole period in line with GLA, ‘London Town Centre Assessment – Stage 1 Comparison Goods Floorspace Need’, 2004. [4] The residual expenditure is that which is available for new floorspace. [5] RTP estimate of sales density of new floorspace. [6] The residual expenditure divided by the sales density. All figures in the table are in millions of pounds (£m). All monetary values are held constant at 2000 prices.



Total Total Growth in Expenditure 2006-2011 (£m) [1] 292.0 82.0 127.1 178.9 40.4 77.5 72.2 251.7 101.1 1,223.1

Market Share 70.0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% Available Expenditure (£m) 204.4 24.6 25.4 35.8 10.1 19.4 14.4 25.2 10.1 369.5 Inflow from outside the Study Area (£m) [2] 18.5


Deduction for Improved Efficiency of Existing Floorspace (£m) [3]

254.8







Total Total Growth in Expenditure 2006-2011 (£m) [1] 392.3 102.3 161.7 239.1 55.4 106.3 98.6 325.8 130.0 1,611.5

Market Share 70.0% 36.1% 29.7% 33.1% 34.9% 31.2% 29.9% 18.2% 19.5% Available Expenditure (£m) 274.6 36.9 48.0 79.1 19.3 33.2 29.5 59.3 25.4 605.3 Inflow from outside the Study Area (£m) [2] 60.5


Deduction for Improved Efficiency of Existing Floorspace (£m) [3] 295.3





APPENDIX 4 Convenience Goods Study Area Map

APPENDIX 5 Retail Capacity Calculation Tables – Convenience Goods

Table 9: Total Population and Population Growth in the Convenience Goods Study Area

Year 2002 2006 2011 2016 Change

Total Population [1] 165,039 168,035 172,017 175,515

Change in Population 2002 to 2006 Numeric change 2,996 Percentage change 1.8% Change in Population 2006 to 2011 Numeric change 3,982 Percentage change 2.4% Change in Population 2011 to 2016 Numeric change 3,499 Percentage change 2.0% Change in Population 2002 to 2016 Numeric change 10,476 Percentage change 6.3%

NOTES: Population is taken from the GLA 2005 Interim Ward Projections for 2002, 2006, 2011 and 2016 (London) and the 2001 Census population (Surrey) which has been projected forward to 2002, 2006, 2011 and 2016 using population growth rates by borough provided by Surrey County Council.

Table 10: Convenience Goods Expenditure and Expenditure Growth

Year 2002 2006 2011 2016 Change

Expenditure (per capita) (£) [1] 1,690 1755 1826 1923

Expenditure net of SFT (per capita) (£) [2] 1,675 1739 1810 1906

Total Study Area Expenditure (£m) [3] 276.4 292.3 311.4 334.6

Growth in Expenditure 2002 - 2006 (£m) 15.9 Growth in Expenditure 2006 - 2011 (£m) 19.1 Growth in Expenditure 2011 - 2016 (£m) 23.2 Growth in Expenditure 2002 - 2016 (£m) 58.1

NOTES: (1) All data derived from MapInfo 2003 per capita annual comparison goods expenditure estimates in 2003 prices. The 2003 estimates are converted to 2000 prices and projected forwards using growth rates of 0.8% from 2004-11 and 0.9% from 2004-16 (MapInfo Information Brief 05/2). (2) Deduction made to account for forecast expenditure on special forms of trading (SFT) at 0.9%. (3) Total Study Area Expenditure is the product of the per capita figure (net of SFT) and the total population figures from row one of Table 10. All monetary values are held constant at 2000 prices.

Table 11: Convenience Goods Expenditure Available for Local Convenience Stores and Supermarkets

Year 2002 to 2006 2006 to 2011 2011 to 2016

Local Convenience Store Expenditure (£m) [1] 4.8 5.7 7.0

Supermarket Expenditure (£m) [2] 11.1 13.4 16.2

NOTES: (1) The amount of expenditure growth that is available for non-supermarket retailing, based on 30% of the total convenience expenditure. (2) The amount of expenditure growth that is available for supermarkets, based on 70% of the total convenience expenditure. All monetary values are held constant at 2000 prices.

Table 12: Supermarket Convenience Goods Floorspace Capacity

Year 2002 to 2006 2006 to 2011 2011 to 2016

Residual Expenditure (£m) [1] 11.1 13.4 16.2

Sales Density - small supermarket (£/sqm) [2] 5,000 5,190 5,388

Sales Density - large supermarket (£/sqm) [3] 10,000 10,381 10,776

Floorspace Capacity - small supermarket / discounter (sqm net)

2,220 2,574 3,014

Floorspace Capacity - large supermarket (sqm net)

1,110 1,287 1,507

NOTES: (1) Expenditure available for supermarkets from Table 11. (2) Source : RTP estimate of sales density for new small supermarket / discounter floorspace. (3) Source : RTP estimate of sales density for new larger supermarket. All monetary values are held constant at 2000 prices.

APPENDIX 5 Retailer Requirements

Retailer Requirements for Kingston upon Thames Company Name Type

Use Class

Min (sq.ft)

Max (Sq.ft)

4 FEET SHOE SHOPS A1 600 1,500 AGAIN CHARITY SHOPS A1 2,250 2,750 AND SO TO BED LTD FURNITURE A1 4,000 4,000 APPLE COMPUTER UK LTD COMPUTERS & SOFTWARE A1 4,000 4,000 ART PICTURE FRAMING A1 600 1,200 BASE MENSWEAR MEN'S WEAR A1 2,500 3,000 BEAVERBROOKS THE JEWELLERS LTD

JEWELLERS/WATCH SELLERS A1 1,000 1,300

BETWEEN THE LINES LTD NEWSAGENT/CARDS/STATIONER

A1 900 1,400

BLUE INC CLOTHING A1 1,500 3,000 BON MARCHE LTD WOMEN'S WEAR A1 2,500 3,000 BOYS BASE CLOTHING A1 2,500 3,000 BRITISH HEART FOUNDATION CHARITY SHOPS A1 600 1,200 BULLFROG CLOTHING A1 1,000 4,500

COTSWOLD OUTDOOR LTD CLOTHING/CAMPING EQUIPMENT

A1 7,500 15,000

COUNTRY CASUALS LTD WOMEN'S WEAR A1 800 1,400 DAVID & GOLIATH RETAIL LTD CLOTHING A1 1,000 1,000 DEBENHAMS RETAIL PLC DEPARTMENT STORES A1 12,000 20,000 DR CHINA DENTAL/MEDICAL A1 350 1,400 FEET INC SHOE SHOPS A1 1,000 1,500 FIRETRAP CLOTHING A1 1,800 2,200

FOPP RECORDS LTD RECORDS/TAPES/CDS/VIDEOS

A1 3,000 5,000

FRANCHETTI BOND LTD SHOE SHOPS A1 800 1,100

GAMESTATION LTD COMPUTERS & SOFTWARE/GAMES & TOYS

A1 700 1,200

GEORGE CLOTHING A1 10,000 20,000 GERRY WEBER LTD WOMEN'S WEAR A1 3,230 5,380 GINGER GROUP (THE) HAIRDRESSERS/BEAUTICIANS A1 500 1,000

GODIVA CONFECTIONERS/TOBACCONISTS

A1 350 500

HEADMASTERS HAIRDRESSERS/BEAUTICIANS A1 1,000 2,000

HOTEL CHOCOLAT LTD CONFECTIONERS/TOBACCONISTS

A1 800 1,350

HPJ RETAILING LTD JEWELLERS/WATCH SELLERS A1 800 1,200 INDIA JANE OF SLOANE STREET

FURNITURE A1 2,000 5,000

JAEGER CO LTD CLOTHING A1 2,300 3,000 JOHN R FOX JEWELLERS JEWELLERS/WATCH SELLERS A1 300 600 JOHNSON CLEANERS UK LTD DRY CLEANERS A1 600 1,400

KHAZANA TRADING LTD LIGHTING/FURNITURE/GIFT SHOPS

A1 1,500 2,000

KRISP CLOTHING CO LTD WOMEN'S WEAR A1 1,250 1,500 LAKELAND LTD HOUSEHOLD ACCESSORIES A1 5,000 7,000 LASERCARE CLINICS (HARROGATE) LTD COSMETICS/TOILETRIES A1 1,500 4,000

LOMBOK FURNITURE A1 3,500 4,500

MAPLIN ELECTRONICS LTD ELECTRICAL/DURABLE GOODS

A1 2,500 5,000

MASSIMO DUTTI UK LTD CLOTHING A1 300 500 MENKIND STORES LTD GIFT SHOPS/FANCY GOODS A1 1,000 1,800 MEXX LTD MEN'S WEAR A1 3,500 8,000 MOSTYNS LTD HOUSEHOLD ACCESSORIES A1 700 5,000 NEW ENGLAND LIFESTYLE LTD

FURNITURE/HOUSEHOLD ACCESSORIES

A1 600 1,200

OFFICE HOLDINGS LTD SHOE SHOPS A1 1,500 1,500

Company Name Type Use Class

Min (sq.ft)

Max (Sq.ft)

OIL & VINEGAR GIFT SHOPS/FANCY GOODS A1 800 2,000 OLIVER BONAS GIFT SHOPS/FANCY GOODS A1 250 1,500 ORIGINAL STONE CO LTD FLOORING SERVICES A1 750 1,200 PAPER MILL SHOP HOBBIES/ARTISTS MATERIALS A1 500 900 PERFUME SHOP LTD PERFUMERY A1 250 600 PHASE EIGHT (FASHION & DESIGNS) LTD

WOMEN'S WEAR A1 900 1,500

POUNDLAND VARIETY/DISCOUNT STORES A1 2,500 7,000 PRICELESS SHOES LTD SHOE SHOPS A1 1,500 2,500 PROFESSIONAL COOKWARE COMPANY (THE) KITCHENS/HOMEWARE A1 750 1,500

REGIS HAIRDRESSERS/BEAUTICIANS A1 900 1,000 REPUBLIC CLOTHING A1 2,000 3,000 RIGHT PRICE LTD HOUSEHOLD ACCESSORIES A1 1,500 3,000 ROBERT DYAS LTD IRONMONGERS/HARDWARE A1 2,500 3,000 ROHAN DESIGNS LTD SPORTS & LEISURE WEAR A1 1,000 1,500 SCOPE CHARITY SHOPS A1 750 5,000 SHABBY & CHIC INTERIORS LTD

FURNITURE A1 1,100 2,500

SHOEFAYRE LTD SHOE SHOPS A1 1,200 2,500

SILVERSCREEN LTD GAMES & TOYS/VIDEO/HI-FI/AUDIOVISUAL

A1 1,900 3,500

SMAERD FASHION RETAIL A1 5,000 7,500 SPORTS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LTD

SPORTS SHOPS A1 15,000 30,000

TILE CLEARING HOUSE LTD DIY/HARDWARE/GRDN CENTRES

A1 4,500 8,000

TJ HUGHES PLC DEPARTMENT STORES A1 25,000 150,00

0 TK MAXX VARIETY/DISCOUNT STORES A1 20,000 30,000 TONI & GUY LTD HAIRDRESSERS/BEAUTICIANS A1 800 1,200 TONI & GUY OPTICIANS LTD OPTICIANS A1 750 1,000 TOY STOP GAMES & TOYS A1 2,500 3,000 TOYS 'R' US LTD GAMES & TOYS A1 15,000 33,50 TRAID LTD CLOTHING A1 800 1,000 USC GROUP PLC MEN'S WEAR A1 4,000 6,000 WAREHOUSE GROUP LTD WOMEN'S WEAR A1 1,500 2,500 WARREN JAMES (JEWELLERS) LTD

JEWELLERS/WATCH SELLERS A1 600 1,000

WHITE WALL GALLERY ART GALLERY A1 750 2,000 WORKS PUBLISHERS OUTLET (THE)

BOOKSELLERS A1 1,500 2,500

ZARA UK LTD CLOTHING A1 10,700 16,150 ZOOM THE LOOM LTD HOUSEHOLD ACCESSORIES A1 1,200 10,000 ALDI STORES LTD SUPERMARKETS A1 Con 14,600 14,600 GOURMET JOES NEW YORK PRETZEL CO

BAKERS A1 Con 50 250

GREGGS PLC BAKERS A1 Con 800 1,200 JULIAN GRAVES LTD HEALTH FOODS A1 Con 500 2,000 MAJESTIC WINE WAREHOUSES LTD OFF LICENCES/LIQUOR A1 Con 2,000 5,000

MORRIS PASTIES LTD BAKERS A1 Con 300 750 ODDBINS LTD OFF LICENCES/LIQUOR A1 Con 800 2,500 BETFRED LTD BOOKMAKERS A2 1,000 1,000 ENDSLEIGH INSURANCE SERVICES LTD INSURANCE BROKERS A2 500 1,000

FRED DONE LTD TURF ACCOUNTANTS A2 1,000 1,000 752PIZZA CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,000 1,200 AS GREEK AS IT GETS CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,150 1,150 BELGO CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 2,500 6,000 BIERODROME CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 2,500 5,500

Company Name Type Use Class

Min (sq.ft)

Max (Sq.ft)

CAFFE ITALIA (UK) LTD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,500 2,500 CORNISH OGGY OGGY PASTY COMPANY (THE)

CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 500 2,000

COSTA LTD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 750 2,000 CREPEAFFAIRE LTD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 300 600 FINE BURGER CO CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,000 2,000 HENRY J BEAN'S GROUP PLC CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 3,000 5,000 KURIYA CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,000 3,500 LA TASCA RESTAURANTS LTD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 3,000 3,000 LOMO CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 2,000 4,000 NOODLE TIME (CROYDON) LTD

CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,500 3,500

OI BAGEL PLC CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 250 1,200 OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE (UK) LTD

CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 4,000 6,000

PASTY PRESTO LTD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 300 2,500 PRESTO CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 300 500 REAL BURGER WORLD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,000 2,500 REAL CHINA LTD (THE) CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 750 750 RESTAURANT BAR & GRILL CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 3,000 8,000 ROCKET RESTAURANTS LTD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 3,750 3,750 SPORTS CAFE INTERNATIONAL CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 10,000 15,000

SPUR RETAURANTS LTD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,000 1,000 YO SUSHI LTD CAFE/RESTAURANT/BAR A3 1,000 2,500 BEST CELLARS PUBLIC HOUSES A4 3,000 3,000 YATES GROUP PLC PUBLIC HOUSES A4 6,000 7,000

BASILICO FAST FOOD/TAKEAWAY OUTLETS

A5 800 2,000

BOMBAY BICYCLE CLUB FAST FOOD/TAKEAWAY OUTLETS

A5 800 1,500

KRISPY KREME DONUTS FAST FOOD/TAKEAWAY OUTLETS

A5 2,500 4,000

MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS LTD

FAST FOOD/TAKEAWAY OUTLETS

A5 700 2,000

ROOSTERS CHICKEN LTD FAST FOOD/TAKEAWAY OUTLETS

A5 500 1,000

Source: Focus Database, March 2006

Documents

Retail Capacity Study - Update September 2006